By Dr. M. Dunn
(A) Nationalism
(1) As workers, entrepreneurs, renters, homeowners, retirees, students, teachers, taxpayers, politicians, etc. people differ socially and pursue different and in many cases conflicting interests. The social relation between a worker and capitalist employer in America is characterized by the same class conflict as in Britain, Germany or elsewhere. The social relation between a tenant and the homeowner is the same independent whether they live in America, Britain or Japan. Nationalists declare all these material interests and social conflicts, circumstances of life, their opinions and beliefs to be less significant when they emphasize their affection for their home country, take pride in being an American, German etc.. By doing so, they postulate a commonality of and between all compatriots independent of all personal conflicts and social antagonisms which characterize their daily life.
(2) The fact that nationalists identify themselves with their nation by neglecting all societal differences and believing that the difference between nationalities are much more important is first of all founded in the fact that all people are subordinated to a state and its jurisdiction. No one has chosen this “membership” and or can give up his membership easily. The people are subjected to a state by laws set up and executed forcefully by a state power. A nationalist turns his practical subjection into his personal identity, thereby denying his subjection as if the nation-state was the manifestation of its citizens’ nationalist identity.
(3) On the basis of this identification nationalism becomes a weltanschauung. The simple fact that someone was born a child of American, Italian or Japanese parents or – depending on the respective laws of acquiring citizenship - was born in a country becomes the central point of reference for the evaluation of people, their interests and rights. Everything is viewed and judged from the nonpartisan perspective of national identity. Nationalist take side for “their” nation and this nation’s success in international competition, divides the world in friends and enemies dependent on whether the particular foreign nation serves the interests or stands in opposition to the interests of the home country.
Within the country nationalists blame foreigners for their own social misery as losers in capitalist competition. Based on the false equation, ‘my own well-being depends on the success of my nation’ they explain their failure as the outcome of foreign nations’ activity and foreigners living in their mother-country, demanding that their nation should stand up against their international rivals and expel foreigners from ‘our’ country and send them back to where they belong.
(4) Many nationalists turn the state decree to discriminate between foreigners and nationals into the consequence of differences which exist in these peoples themselves. “They” are foreigners because they are different from “us”. What these asserted differences are and why these features make “us” superior to them depends on the particular nationality (see note), the main thing, however, is that the nationality seen from the nationalist perspective only manifests the differences which exist independent from and prior to any state decree. “Americans”, “British”, “Germans” are different by nature and culture. And because foreigners are different from “us” they also ought to be treated differently by ourselves and by our state. The racist interpretation of national differences is not a big step to be made by a nationalist who takes pride to be an American or German.
A short note on USAmerican nationalism
US American nationalism differs from the so called “national identity” asserted in many other countries which often refer to a particular ethnicity, culture (language) and race as the content of their national identity. The national identity of the US, a nation created by immigrants from different countries, ethnicities and cultures, was from the beginning founded on the belief that all Americans share the same “values”. If Americans are asked to explain what their national identity is they will usually refer to the American “dream of freedom”, laid down in the American Constitution. Independent where the people originated from, to which ethnicity or race they belong, what makes them Americans is that everyone has the same right to pursue his private interests, i.e. compete on equal terms at least in principle. (“pursuit of happiness”) In this respect reference to a specific ethnicity, race or culture is not typical for the Americans who are often proud to represent the unity of diversities, a community of competitors.
(5) The difference a nationalist sees between “us” and “them” is not necessarily functional from the state point of view. In times where the state’s economic might is based on international capitalism, where goods are exported and imported and immigrants contribute to the domestic work-force “trading partners” and “foreigners” are welcome if they contribute to the success of a capitalist nation. If the state defines foreigners as being useful for the state and for business than this political point of view might contrast with the nationalistic point of view of the “average American” who demand that “immigrants” and imported goods should not be allowed to steal “our” jobs”.
(B) Racism
(1) All racists differentiate between “collectives” , e.g. nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual preferences, age, social status etc., which are claimed to compete against each other. Whether these collectives exist or are only imagined depends on the particular form of racism. In all cases the racist point of view is that these collectives differ in respect to their value, some are superior to others, and because of these real or proclaimed differences the inferior collective should be treated differently (badly) in respect to their rights and duties. What characterizes all forms of racism is that demands and claims laid on the inferior collective are turned into their nature. ‘Because they are inferior by nature they ought to be treated accordingly, e.g. should not be entitled to have or do something’.
(2) One manifestation of racism refers to biological or physical differences like skin color, form of face, eyes, height, sex etc, which gave it its name, racism. The foundation of this particular manifestation of racism is often an existing political, economic or social discrimination, e.g. black people or Chinese are treated as ‘slaves’ or cheap workforce, certain casts in India are socially not entitled to become doctors, teachers etc. Racists believe that these forms of social, economic and political discrimination are justified because they match the nature of the particular group.
(a) ‘The “nigger” is physically strong, but lazy and dumb, he needs a master to instruct him what to do, how to use his strength, etc.’ The logic of racism turns the material interest in using the slave into the character of the group of black people which themselves deserve to be mastered by white people.
Hitler argued that the white people are not superior because they are more intelligent than other races, but pointed out that the members of the Aryan race are superior because they are willing to sacrifice their lives for their nation, for their community. In this case, the political interest to use and functionalize the German citizen for the nation’s success in international competition is turned into the nature of the German soul to serve and sacrifice. The contradiction is that force would not be necessary to establish these social relations if these were founded on nature and were irrefutable as laws of nature.
(b) A very common form of racism is the saying that women are dumb and foolish, don’t know how to drive, are superior only if it comes to run the household and take care of the children, etc. In former times this kind of racism was founded in the fact that women were discriminating against socially, economically and politically (e.g.voting rights). If women were not allowed to attend schools or were financially not able to take driving lessons than racists turn this social discrimination into something which results from gender differences.’ The demand that women should serve is declared to be their nature. ‘Women should concentrate on what they do best – take care of the children or run the household, but don’t let them run an office or allow them to vote, etc. !‘
In our times sexism doesn’t necessarily refer to an existing discrimination or competition but on an imagined competition between men and women. A Chauvinist, e.g. who claims that women can’t drive takes pride of being a “man”, feels superior to “women” as if there was a competition between male and female drivers on our streets.
(3) Racism exists also in the form explained before as a radicalization of a nationalistic belief. “We” are good hard-working Americans, brave and patriotic, with universal humanist values like human rights, thereby superior to other nations and entitled to rule the world. Not surprisingly other nationals a labeled less favorable: ‘Mexicans, Italians, Spaniards and Greek are lazy enjoying their daily siesta’, ‘Chinese are sneaky, you never know what they think’, ‘Russians are said to be mindless and brutal’, 'Brits elitist and Germans cold, arrogant and dangerous', 'Iranians and Muslims are terrorists who behead every religious or political dissident'. Everyone knows these prejudices about other nationalities which a based on the competition of states and how states treat foreigners domestically. By abstracting from these real interests and conflicts nationalists interprets the rivalry in terms of cultural differences which tend to “clash”.
Anti-semitism also falls into this category. Based on the false equation, ‘my well-being depends on the success of my country’ nationalists blame people with a different culture or religion for their failure in competition. In the case of anti-semitism the difference in religious beliefs and culture are claimed to be connected to racial differences and negative traits of character. ‘The Jews are cunning, stingy, selfish and money-driven which is why they ruin other people, enterprises and nations economically. Due to their parasitic nature they have to be treated as such, that is eliminated or driven from the territory.’
(4) The logic of racist thinking that societally produced differences justify how people are treated holds true also in cases of racism which is not directed against foreigners but nationals, people who are old, handicapped, homeless and poor. Because these people are “useless” from the point of view of capitalist exploitation and also from the point of state interest and still fed racists see them as lazy parasites of 'our' community that should be expelled from our land.
(5) Under the conditions of a capitalist society people are objectively forced to compete and as every competition this competition produces winners and losers in all spheres and at all levels of job hierarchy. People also compete in areas, where profit-maximization is not the driving principal, like in schools, universities; institutions managed by the state or other authorities. And finally people also compete without being forced to compete, like in sport, arts, appearance, significance, etc.
People who agree that competition in general is a good thing because the talented and hardworking people are rewarded and the idle and lazy will be punished interpret the outcome of competition, imposed upon them or not, in terms of personal qualities. Their success in competition proves they are destined to win. If that self-view contrasts with reality than something must be wrong; be it “the system” (unfair competition) or the competitor who stole the success. In some cases losers then demonstrate their moral superiority by settling scores, good that weapons are so easy to get. Other guys take the outcome of competition personal in a different way and explain their failure in capitalist or in any other field of competition by their own personal inferiority (“I am a loser”) and commit suicide. What these peoples in all their differences share is that they take the competition as a “test” and material of proving their self-worthiness. The same principle of competition which supposedly equalizes all differences between people – everyone has the chance to win in fair competition – turns out to be a good breeding ground for the racism of competition! The state
(6) The racist justifies differences made by states by relating the politically decreed discrimination to alleged differences in character of the so discriminated. In other cases racists demand that certain groups, e.g. immigrants, should be treated harshly by the state, because they blame them for “stealing jobs” and ruining the country and become critical if the state authority does not respond to their demand. They then often take the affair into their own hands. Because the racist’ concept of the enemy does not necessary correspond to the politically defined enemies states constantly have to agitate their people in times of war and peace to keep them up to date who the current enemies and friends are as much as the state welcomes the “patriotic” feelings of their citizens.
(7) These examples reveal that racism does not only refer merely to cases of racial discrimination. Racism is also not always linked to the nationalistic concept of “us” and “them”. What characterizes all forms of racism is that claims laid on the inferior collective are turned into their “nature” or “essence”. Whether this “nature” refers to a physical or biological difference or to other differences (religion, culture) is not important. The logic is always the same: Because “they” are inferior to “us” they ought to be treated accordingly, e.g. should not be entitled to have or do something. The way how people are treated is thereby claimed to be the consequence of their own nature.
Comments
Post a Comment